Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4418
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ramendra Jain, J.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Chaudhary - Respondent
CR No. 1138 of 2018
Decided On : 20-02-2018
Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, for the Petitioner
An auction purchaser is not bound by the contract between the electricity provider and the previous consumer, and therefore not liable for any dues of the previous consumer.
Headnote:
Electricity Connection - Auction Purchaser - The court affirmed the lower court's decision to direct the electricity provider to issue a connection to the auction purchaser, ruling that the purchaser was not bound by the contract between the electricity provider and the previous consumer, and therefore not liable for any dues of the previous consumer. The court also noted that the validity of a specific clause in the sales circular was left open to be decided by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an auction purchaser of premises, applied for an electricity connection, which was refused by the electricity provider due to arrears of the previous owner. The trial court and the First Appellate Court directed the electricity provider to provide the connection to the respondent upon application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality and perversity in the orders of both the trial court and the First Appellate Court, and dismissed the petition. It observed that the trial court would deal with the validity of a specific clause in the sales circular at the time of final adjudication of the suit.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of the electricity provider to issue a connection to the auction purchaser due to arrears of the previous owner, and the application of a specific clause in the sales circular.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the auction purchaser was not bound by the contract between the electricity provider and the previous consumer, and therefore not liable for any dues of the previous consumer. It also noted that the validity of a specific clause in the sales circular was left open to be decided by the trial court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to direct the electricity provider to issue a connection to the auction purchaser and noting that the trial court would deal with the validity of a specific clause in the sales circular at the time of final adjudication of the suit.
JUDGMENT
Ramendra Jain, J. (Oral) - Through this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to the order dated 28.10.2017 (Annexure P.5) of the First Appellate Court affirming the order of the trial Court dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure P.4) directing the appellant-Nigam to provide electricity connection to the respondent-plaintiff within 15 days. upon application of the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC.
2. In nutshell, respondent-plaintiff being an auction purchaser of the premises in dispute in a public auction by the Bank applied for electricity connection which was refused by the appellant-Nigam on the ground that unless and until arrears amounting to Rs. two lacs of the previous owner towards electricity consumption charges are being paid, no electricity connection can be restored or given to him.
3. Being aggrieved, respondent-plaintiff approached the Civil Court for directing the appellant-Nigam to issue him electricity connection, wherein, upon his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court directed the appellant-Nigam to provide a electricity connection to the respondent-plaintiff vide impugned orders Annexures P.4 and P.5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this Court towards Clause 21-A of the Sales Circular dated 16.01.2013 and referring to a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/s Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 396 urged that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that in view of the above clause 21-A of the Sales Circular, no new connection could be given to the respondent-plaintiff.
5. Having given considerable thoughts to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I find that the instant revision is completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow:-
6. The Apex Court In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.'s case (supra), while remanding the matter to this Court did not give any finding qua Clause 21-A of the Sales Circular of the appellant, rather it simply observed that in case, this Court accepts the challenge of the first respondent to Clause 21-A as inserted in the terms and conditions of the supply, the appellant will refund the amount of Rs. twenty five lacs with 6% interest thereon from the date of payment by the first respondent till the date of its return to the appellant. In case, the writ petition is dismissed by this Court, the appellant would be entitled, at the volition of the first respondent to adjust the amount of Rs. twenty five lacs towards the dues claimed from the previous consumer and maintain the fresh connection given to the first respondent on its fulfilling obligations in terms of Clause 21-A and act on that basis. Meaning thereby the matter regarding validity of Clause 21-A was left open to be decided by this Court. Therefore, no benefit of the said authority can be given to the petitioner more particularly, when in a latest judgment subsequent to the aforesaid citation relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, titled as, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others vs. DVS Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 2009 SC 647 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the amount payable towards electricity dues does not constitute a charge upon the premise. The respondent-plaintiff as an auction purchaser is not bound by the contract in between the appellant-Nigam and the earlier defaulted consumer. He cannot be prima-facie liable for the dues if any, recoverable from the previous consumer.
7. I have gone through the orders of both the Courts below and find no illegality and perversity in the same. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with the observation that the trial Court would deal with Clause 21-A of the Sales Circular referred to above by learned counsel for the petition
